Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was on GW's website and noticed they had a countdown to the realease of the new edition of WHFB, i was kinda wondering, what exactly do they do when they release a new edition? and also, would yall guess that because of this new release that warhammer fantasy will get a new surge of popularity? i've been doing the wargaming thing for a couple months and went 40K, though i woulda gone fantasy if it had been more popular (don't know about yall, but here there's like no one playing)

40k is more populated by the young types; if you're a younger person most likely you'll see more of your friends playing: more simplistic rules and simpler army design attracts more players. I have heard that WHF is more popular in England than in the States. Accually if you buy the current WHF boxed set (the new one with the goblins and dwarves) you can get a free whfb rule book when the next edition comes out.

well here its not just just the younger players, i live in texas, and pretty much everyone who plays warhammer plays 40K. i heard that even at the tournament in houston there was a really small amount of WHFB players. like i said, if it gets more popular cuz of the new edition coming out, id consider switching, i think id prefer the more complicated rules that seem to lend better to strategy.

I find it unfortunate that the simplistic 40k is so much more popular in the US. I guess that most people just want to blow stuff up with their 8-foot-tall super humans.

I'm really hoping that the new edition revitalizes the game and gets some of the older guys back into playing it more.

Posted By AMP187 on 07/14/2006 10:44 PM
well here its not just just the younger players, i live in texas, and pretty much everyone who plays warhammer plays 40K. i heard that even at the tournament in houston there was a really small amount of WHFB players. like i said, if it gets more popular cuz of the new edition coming out, id consider switching, i think id prefer the more complicated rules that seem to lend better to strategy.

The crowd at the Houston GT was small because it was a GW run event.  After the delcline in quality Texas fantasy players have been hands off.  As with the rest of the country there is a Indy GT circut that puts on the best tourneys for fantasy.  In fact there is an Indy Grand Tournement next week I will be attending called bayou battles that will get upwards of 80 players attending,  That is more than twice what the GW could muster for 40K.  Texas also has 5 tounements in total so one would be near you at some time.  There is the Hombre in Killeen, The Alamo in San Antonio, Wasteland Wars in Lubbock,  The aforementioned Bayou battles, and the Lone Wolf in Dallas.  Were exactly do you live in Texas?

@ Manfred poor 40K rules have led to a general revolt in my little backwoods area almost everyone plays fantasy now, with the new boxed set we are hopeing to hook more so we have less 40K and more Fantasy and anything not 40K.

@Infantryman:
If you buy the current (6th ed) boxed set, the one with Orcs & Empire... the one that is about to be rendered obsolete by the new 7th ed... then you can get a free copy of the 7th ed hardback rules. Hope this link works- http://us.games-workshop.com/news/current/WarhammerOffer.htm 

In my area GW games in general have lost table-time to Flames of War. There are still a lot of 40K players, but almost all of us Fantasy players have taken a break as we wait on the new edition... and during this break we have discovered the goodness that is WarMachine.

@AMP187:
What do they do when they release a new edition? Well, usually they make a few minor rules changes, and change the game mechanics, sometimes a little, sometimes quite a lot. I don't remember exactly which edition it was, but once they went to a card-based system for magic & magic items. The last time (From 5th to 6th) they changed the basic mechanics quite extensively, and for the better- I think they learned a lot from Warmaster. No more Herohammer! (In older editions, you were required to spend 50% of your points on units- and some players complained that 50% was too much!) They set up they system of core/special/rare unit types, and tied the number of each to your points size, streamlined the combat resolution system, streamlined the magic, set it up so that named special characters could not be modifed (yaaay! no longer must I face Grom the Paunch with the Crown of Command!) and in general made a much better game. 

This time my group is wondering exactly what needed changing. There are other threads filled with rumors. Personally, I don't think the game needs an overhaul, as much as the armies need to be re-balanced against one another. I think GW's worst problem (aside from ambiguously-worded rules which aren't playtested enough) has always been Army-Creep: each new army seems to be just that teensy bit better than the one that came before it, it has race-specific rules that don't combine well with other races' special rules, and often these race-specific rules are identical in effect to other races' rules but have a different name, or a slighty different wording, which leads to ambiguity and argument. After a few iterations, the newest army to be released gets to be much more powerful than the first couple of original armies.

I hope they don't dumb it down. Frankly I am always surprised when people talk about how simple 40K is compared to fantasy; I think 40K is much more complicated, with not only strength but armor penetration to take into account, when you can fire once or twice, how close a model has to be in order to fight in hand-to-hand, cover save vs. armor save, some times a flamer uses a template and sometimes it hits every model and sometimes it only hits a certain number of models (how many different versions of city-fight rules has GW used in the past six years?), when are units pinned by enemy fire and when are they not, invulnerable saves vs. regular saves, which are you going to take? etc.

3rd edition of 40K was significanly dumbed down.  4th edition is the remedial version vs the short bus version of 3rd edition.   I myself cannot see how anyone can reasonably say 40k is more complicated when there is an entire other phase, more complicated psychology, movement, combat, special rules, and magic items in Fantasy.

seconded...but 40k has charme.

I play both and i'm very happy with that.

Greets
Schepp himself

Magic and Miscast from what I heard are the BIG things that are going to change. Miscasts are going to be worse and Magic is not going to be a game winner like it is now. Scaven with like 17 power dice at 2000 is insane! Other then that the next big thing I think is going from 4 to 5 wide for a rank.

It sounds like everyone is saying that 40k players are tards and only the smart kids play WHFB, though I hope thats not really the intention, it certainly is coming across that way and seems to hardly answer the quest posed, which is neither news nor rumor.

ah sorry ahtman, i guess i couldnt think of a better place to post this, and i know personally im not trying to imply that WHFB players are the "smart kids" and people who play 40K are "tards", after all i do play 40K. i was just asking a question about an upcoming release.

I played Fantasy a while back and really enjoyed it, but ended up selling off my army when I went away to college and nobody in the game group up there played it. I'll probably get back into it once the new edition comes out, but there's one thing that's preventing me. I just can't get up enough interest in any one army, unlike 40k or Warmachine. The whole setting of the game just strikes me as a bit... boring. That, and I have little interest in painting an army with models I don't like, or playing an army with crummy rules, and there are a lot of both in the Fantasy range. As much as I hate those 'Help me choose an army' threads, I may have to end up using one of those at some point in the near future. At this point, Orks look to be at the front of the running, but they've got such a high model count... Ugh...

But yeah, 40k is definitely simpler than Fantasy overall, but I wouldn't say it's oversimplified. The actual mechanics are mostly fine, though the AP system and the fact that Leadership is mostly a non-issue could use work, although the latter issue has more to do with the prevalence of Fearless units, Ld 10, rerolls, and the like. Heck, when compared in a vacuum, the 4th edition codices are much more balanced against each other than the 3rd ed. ones were, even though there are still problems with some units being too good or utterly useless. The huge problem with the game as a whole is the consistently poor editing and prevalence of ambiguous wording in just about every publication. If they'd get that issue in order, along with the recent improvements, they'd be well on their way to approaching a very enjoyable game. From there, they'd be able to expand upon the basic ideas and add a little more complexity.

3rd edition of 40K was significanly dumbed down. 4th edition is the remedial version vs the short bus version of 3rd edition. I myself cannot see how anyone can reasonably say 40k is more complicated when there is an entire other phase, more complicated psychology, movement, combat, special rules, and magic items in Fantasy

This is kind of an old gripe, and is an oversimplification itself. The 40K assault phase is certainly more complicated than Fantasy's, as is the shooting phase. And while I think Fantasy's movement phase requires more brainpower, especially as a Tyranid player it's not like I can go on shutdown in the 40K movement phase. It's important not just what you assault with what, but how you contact the units and attached characters, etc. Sure, I guess the movement phase is less eventful for a IW player, but the same goes for a gunline Empire player.

I think both games have their complexities, strong points, balance issues and power lists. It's not really productive to claim one is better than the other. Additionally, it's important to note that "more complicated" does not equal better game. Otherwise chess woulda died a long time ago.

Posted By gorgon on 07/15/2006 4:13 PM

This is kind of an old gripe, and is an oversimplification itself. The 40K assault phase is certainly more complicated than Fantasy's, as is the shooting phase. And while I think Fantasy's movement phase requires more brainpower, especially as a Tyranid player it's not like I can go on shutdown in the 40K movement phase. It's important not just what you assault with what, but how you contact the units and attached characters, etc. Sure, I guess the movement phase is less eventful for a IW player, but the same goes for a gunline Empire player.

I think both games have their complexities, strong points, balance issues and power lists. It's not really productive to claim one is better than the other. Additionally, it's important to note that "more complicated" does not equal better game. Otherwise chess woulda died a long time ago.

How is a 40K assault phase more complicated than hand to hand in Fantasy?  There are no modifiers for hitting, armour, no static resolution, no psychology test, no reactions to being assaulted, no banners, no ranks, no added resolution depending on were the combat takes place (front, rear, side.  There are also no modifiers for shooting like range or movement. 

I will put it to you this way, the Fantasy crowd here tends towards 20+ gamers with few to none 24 or under around here.  40K is a few older players and a majority of  kids.  If you feel it worthwhile spend a game explaining why a  basalisk cannot shoot twice in the same turn every turn to a 12 year old  then more power to you. That is not in my definition of "fun".

 

You're ignoring important points. Model movement actually takes place in the 40K assault phase. Deciding/declaring charges and the accompanying movement are all in the movement phase in WFB. Also, casaulty removal is a huge factor in 40K that doesn't exist in WFB. Most of your points regarding ranks, banners, etc. can be summed up as +1, +2, etc...it's just resolution. There's much more decision-making taking place in the 40K assault phase. Regarding the 40K shooting phase...well, I think you just have to spend some time around YMDC. Targeting gets much more fiddly in 40K.

Again, I agree that the movement phase is incredibly huge in WFB. In many ways, that is the game. And I think WFB is a really good game. I just think calling 40K a simplistic game is a simplification. Although 40K has its roots in WFB, it's evolved into something different, and I think it's hard to compare them on a literal rule-by-rule basis. Moreover, I don't think more complicated equals a better game. Both WFB and 40K could use some streamlining, IMO.

IMO, it seems like your frustration is more about the players in your area than the 40K system itself. Right now, I'm involved in a Vogen/CoD campaign with a bunch of mature, 30+ year old players, including several members of this board. It's been great fun. So I can't say that I've had the same experience.

And for the record (and also to bring this thread back on topic), I will be playing some WFB once 7th hits. I generally like most of the rumored changes.

Posted By gorgon on 07/15/2006 4:13 PM
This is kind of an old gripe, and is an oversimplification itself. ...I think both games have their complexities, strong points, balance issues and power lists. It's not really productive to claim one is better than the other. Additionally, it's important to note that "more complicated" does not equal better game. Otherwise chess woulda died a long time ago.

Spot on.  Unfortunately I've been hearing the "Wheeling a block of spearmen instead of deploying them from an APC makes me a morally superior gamer"-line for as long as I've been following the hobbies.  It's a shame really, but some people just feel the need to condemn people who have fun differently from how they do.

Personally, there are things I like about Fantasy, but I've just never been able to get into it.  The cost of buying more miniatures has been a big problem for me.  Also, though I have some conversion ideas, on the whole it seems harder for me to express myself creatively modelling-wise with fantasy.  I guess I could spend several hundred hours modelling different historically-accurate poofy sleeves on my spearmen, but that's just not my idea of fun.

You're ignoring important points. Model movement actually takes place in the 40K assault phase. Deciding/declaring charges and the accompanying movement are all in the movement phase in WFB. Also, casaulty removal is a huge factor in 40K that doesn't exist in WFB. Most of your points regarding ranks, banners, etc. can be summed up as +1, +2, etc...it's just resolution. There's much more decision-making taking place in the 40K assault phase. Regarding the 40K shooting phase...well, I think you just have to spend some time around YMDC. Targeting gets much more fiddly in 40K.

Yes you move your model six inches anyhing within 2 inches of contact can assult and you can pick weapons that nullify saves.  I don't see your point, everything is generilized.  Are you saying because you move your models in the assault it becomes some sort of Goh match?  I could possibley see trying to guess three inches for leaping warriors with rending claws at the back of a horde of hormogaunts to be mildly challenging.  Have they come up with a challenge system for characters yet?  Do they have armour modifyers for strength?  Do they have something to trump the initiative based first round of combat?  Sorry but I don't find crowding miniatures in a space and keeping your power fist far enough away so it can't be hit anywere near as complicated as working out a challenge with a unit with X banner that also has X magic Item that does X.  I also do not frequent YMDC, namely because i lost interest in 40K because of the horrible set of ambiguous rules that only got worse.  I don't need 9 pages of cyclic arguments to verify that.

 

Again, I agree that the movement phase is incredibly huge in WFB. In many ways, that is the game. And I think WFB is a really good game. I just think calling 40K a simplistic game is a simplification. Although 40K has its roots in WFB, it's evolved into something different, and I think it's hard to compare them on a literal rule-by-rule basis. Moreover, I don't think more complicated equals a better game. Both WFB and 40K could use some streamlining, IMO.

Did you ever play Rogue Trader or 2nd edition 40k?  Third edition oversimplyfied the game, 4th edition tried to put some of the rules back on but was so poorly written that it went into my do not open under an circumstances drawer.  2nd edition I definately had to worry about fireing lanes, vehicles explodeing, armour modifyiers assured that marines would actully be cut down by bolters, and they had the almighty overwatch dictated.  In third edition I would randomly push my minis around the board and roll dice and still managed to win 60% of games.  Something that never happend with 2nd edition.  I also had much much less fun, 3rd edition killed the orks for me, they went from shooty horde army with all sorts of great gadgets and upgrades to a mediocre assault horde army. 

 

6th edition fantasy is about as good a game as Games Workshop ever produced oputside their board games it does not need to be touched.  40K needs to get back towards more complexity, scrapping AP and introduceing armour modifyers, reintroduceing more complex vehicle rules (ie when they blow up they do more than smoke in place) and overwatch would make it much much better.

IMO, it seems like your frustration is more about the players in your area than the 40K system itself. 

No it is definately with the system, 12 year olds are just a fringe benifit.

 

Spot on.  Unfortunately I've been hearing the "Wheeling a block of spearmen instead of deploying them from an APC makes me a morally superior gamer"-line for as long as I've been following the hobbies.  It's a shame really, but some people just feel the need to condemn people who have fun differently from how they do.

No, it is more like giveing a clarion call to tempt people over to something better. 

 

so, is the woodelves codex going to be trash after the revamp?

yep

I agree with Gorgon. The CR system and armor/hit modifiers is also a simplification itself. It's just another mathematical exercise in the guise of "strategy". I differentiate math from strategy with the complexity of the math involved. I know in every game system it all comes down to math (hey, jumping the knight in every square in the fewest moves possible is a math exercise too) but the shallow math that most people use for calculation of their army strength and simplified situations (i.e. most of the arguments you see about why a unit in 40k is powerful or weighing the CR bonus vs. flanking/wounds/fear bonus) is what I mean by math. Strategy is all the fuzzy stuff people leave out of their 40k arguments of Unit X > Unit Y like random area terrain (and the LOS/difficult/cover from that) or LOS/range sniping. In other words, what could have been cool and based on rules and strategy is instead based on a single CR bonus or armor/hit modifier. Hurray?

If you wanted a system where tactics allow you to win because of the rules, play LOTR. Spearmen > horses because of the way the rules work, not because you get +1 ranks of hitting. Flanking is important because the enemy gets less hits on you, not because the CR system tells you you get a +1/2 bonus for doing so. Of course, if you wanted a more tactical game you'd play Warmachine anyway. Positioning is everything there and facing of models during combat or shooting actually matters. Thus, flanking is again important because of hits, not because you get the all-important +1/2 CR bonus. And I hear it's more popular than LOTR in terms of gaming.

And Overwatch. Yeah.

Wolf - From what I hear it's the armies dependent on elite infantry that will suffer because of 5/rank for the CR. As if HE or saurus needed a gimp. I don't think RAF, flying circus, or skinks will be affected.

I think people that are attracted to the hobby because of the gameplay mechanics and outwitting their opponents, play fantasy. Those attracted by the background play 40k. This isn't to say one is better than the other at these points... they're just the most obvious factors.

Would anuybody know of any gaming groups in EL Paso specifically? I am movign out there and the last time i left that city they were losing their last FLGS, I desperaterly want to believe that with the big military base there that some one would play it, any ideas?

mtw - This is off topic and you should post in the "Schedule a Game" forum. However, while I was there (moved out on 06/00 but revisited 07/02) and when I went back to visit, there wasn't much of a gaming community. Oddly enough, the pokemon tcg phenomenon was still big on '02 and when my friend and I went to a modelling hobby store the guy said there was a small group that meets every month or bimonthly to play some GW games.

I'm always baffled when people say 40k V4 is dumbed down or any less tactical than Fantasy. I'm confident saying I'm well versed in both, and once you know what you're doing in both systems, you're really just splitting hairs trying to decide which is more challenging.

Fantasy has a steeper learning curve though, which I think tricks people into thinking that it's a more complex system overall.

Walked in Thursday for a little EPIC smackdown (eldar vs. marines equals dead marines buahahah) and I was frankly shocked to see a large fantasy game going on, and  in a GW store no less.

I think between Houston, San Antonio and Berkely east (Austin) there are maybe 20 active players? Whats the real count here?

 

Dice Monkey how many regular players are there for Fantasy Houston side (once every week or so)?

Posted By Dice Monkey on 07/16/2006 1:00 PM

Yes you move your model six inches anyhing within 2 inches of contact can assult and you can pick weapons that nullify saves.  I don't see your point, everything is generilized.  Are you saying because you move your models in the assault it becomes some sort of Goh match?  I could possibley see trying to guess three inches for leaping warriors with rending claws at the back of a horde of hormogaunts to be mildly challenging.

I could go into more detail, but it's probably not worth the effort. Suffice to say, in the 40K assault phase you have to make decisions about where to assault, what models to remove as casualties, and even what combats to resolve first (this does make a difference in some situations). Is it brain surgery? No. But it's still more thinking than what takes place in the WFB combat phase, which is primarily a *resolution* phase. The real strategy and tactics in WFB mostly take place in the movement phase, and it's the movement phase that makes WFB a great game.

Have they come up with a challenge system for characters yet? Do they have armour modifyers for strength? Do they have something to trump the initiative based first round of combat?

And you really think these add strategy? They're just different mechanics. Does WFB have vehicle armor values? How about terrain sizes? Both games have their complexities.

But really, why does any of that even matter? We can sit here all day and make a laundry list of different game mechanics. It doesn't really have any direct bearing on whether the games are a good mental exercise. Calculating combat resolution or strength modifiers? Anyone can add.

Sorry but I don't find crowding miniatures in a space and keeping your power fist far enough away so it can't be hit anywere near as complicated as working out a challenge with a unit with X banner that also has X magic Item that does X.

You and I are just never going to agree on this point. Working out complexities of magic items just isn't what I'm looking for in a wargame. It's probably why I'll eventually end up playing WAB (I already have a start on a Macedonian army).

Did you ever play Rogue Trader or 2nd edition 40k?

Played RT off and on, played 2nd edition extensively and at the GT level (tied for 5th overall at Baltimore '97). I knew 2nd edition like the back of my hand. It was a pseudo-skirmish game, but a good game and a lot of fun. Third edition was certainly a huge change. However, I like that it added some movement back into to the game. Second edition was a very static game. Moreover, the codicies were not nearly as balanced as they are today, and it was only the fact that the tourney scene was smaller and less organized then that these balance problems weren't exposed even more. If we were still playing 2nd edition, this board would be talking about nothing other than Eldar, Space Wolves and a few other specific army builds (beaucoup Pulsa Rokkit armies, etc).

6th edition fantasy is about as good a game as Games Workshop ever produced oputside their board games it does not need to be touched.  40K needs to get back towards more complexity, scrapping AP and introduceing armour modifyers, reintroduceing more complex vehicle rules (ie when they blow up they do more than smoke in place) and overwatch would make it much much better.

The problem with adding 2nd ed. complexity back into the game is that people are used to playing with larger armies and getting games completed in a reasonable time frame. Those kinds of changes would force the game back into a pseudo-skirmish format, and I'm not sure the players would be happy about that. "Armies" would be cheaper, however.

to wander back towads the topic... If all they are doing is revamping the magic phase and changing the number of models required to make a rank, I for one see no reason to mess with the current system. I had heard they were also going to change the way sirmishers worked, making every skirmish unit work similarly to Beastmen (i.e. 25% of the unit must be in range in order to charge).  Changing the number of models in a rank... wonder what they do to Ogres?  My 8-strong units may have to be reorganized.

On to the endless Fantasy/40K debate- I have played both. I simply enjoy playing fantasy more, and since I only have a limited amount of time and money to devote to the hobby, fantasy wins.  I think a big part of the reason 40K is so much more popular has to do with the models (there are more plastic kits available for 40K) and the army size. Until Ogre Kingdoms, a viable fantasy army had to be much larger, and consequently more expensive, than a 40K force. And that's assuming you think OK are a viable army, but that's another thread.

In my first few games of 40K, I ran into things I didn't like. Short ranges on shooty weapons in a sci-fi game, for example. (When you can move 6", then assault 6", and my Guardians with their 12" shuriken catapults never get to fire, well...). And by now my low interest in 40K is so ingrained that there is nothing that will induce me to play it. I don't like tomatoes, either, and I'm not going to start liking them now, no matter how many people rhapsodize about their juicy tartness.  SST is available, and while I flinch with every new release (imagining Heinlein spinning in his grave), I like the game mechanics a lot. So my sci-fi gaming dollars go to the guys at Mongoose. It is my personal choice, no matter how incomprehensibly perverse it may seem to others.

I'm always baffled when people say 40k V4 is dumbed down or any less tactical than Fantasy. I'm confident saying I'm well versed in both, and once you know what you're doing in both systems, you're really just splitting hairs trying to decide which is more challenging.

Fantasy has a steeper learning curve though, which I think tricks people into thinking that it's a more complex system overall.

Ed correct me if I am wrong but you were not playing during 2nd edition, so my perspective comes from that.  They dumbed it down to the point I no longer had to think about half the things I used to worry about.  Everything is standardized and sanitized to the point were X army has it's version of a bolter, melta, flamer, krack missle, auto cannon, ect. and with the AP system there is no longer any reason to take anything but lascannons or missle launchers as 90% of the things you would be faceing have a 3+ armour save.   Put more complex rules in get rid of the AP system,  and overwatch and you might see me interested in the game again.  Fantasy you have completely diffrent gamplay from diffrent armies, it has been streamlined rather than dumbed down.

 

Walked in Thursday for a little EPIC smackdown (eldar vs. marines equals dead marines buahahah) and I was frankly shocked to see a large fantasy game going on, and  in a GW store no less.

I think between Houston, San Antonio and Berkely east (Austin) there are maybe 20 active players? Whats the real count here?

Dice Monkey how many regular players are there for Fantasy Houston side (once every week or so)?

 

No there are quite a bit more, considering the GT's draw at least 50 people (closer to 70-80 this year).  In Houston there are 30 or so regualr players, two you should know are Carl and Joe O.  They tend to play at Heroes,  All the Fun Stuff, and some of the other non GW stores.  You should stop by the Sofitel this weekend and check out Bayou Battles on Saterday or Sunday I willl be wearing my groups traditional war fez feel free to walk up and smack me in face after introduceing yourself.

 

The problem with adding 2nd ed. complexity back into the game is that people are used to playing with larger armies and getting games completed in a reasonable time frame. Those kinds of changes would force the game back into a pseudo-skirmish format, and I'm not sure the players would be happy about that. "Armies" would be cheaper, however.

 

We never had that problem with 2nd edition, 2.5 to 3 hours is alll it took us with a 3500 point army.  I never ever ever lost a game with my Orks(though I cut it pretty close when I had a few too many Jones is acting strangley rolls with Tyranids). GW was also better staffed back then (ala the people knew the rules) so if you called for a rules judgement they consistantly would tell you the same thing.  I actually don't believe the employees were smarter just that the rules were less ambiguous.

 

So far as changes from my understanding Skrimishers can now be march blocked take that 40K Skink army of doom.

I hate to chime in, I'm sure I'll be shouted out for it, but I can't help it.

I've been playing GW games since 1988 when I was in high school, and I firmly believe that overwatch was one of the worst rules that GW has come up with. Where I used to play when I was in college (when 2nd ed. came out), entire movement phases could be summed up with "Ok, everything's on overwatch."

Blech.

Sal.